- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Date: Tue, 21 Apr 2015 15:13:34 +0200
- To: "Roy T. Fielding" <fielding@gbiv.com>, Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org>
- CC: RFC Errata System <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org>, Pete Resnick <presnick@qti.qualcomm.com>, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>, simon.schueppel@googlemail.com, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On 2015-02-06 23:32, Roy T. Fielding wrote: > ... > I looked at this originally and thought it made sense, but figured > I would have to check carefully first before responding ... and > then lost it. > > It should be verified as technical, but (like Julian) I think the > fix should be limited to field-content and obs-fold: > > Section: 3.2 > > Original Text > ------------- > field-name = token > field-value = *( field-content / obs-fold ) > field-content = field-vchar [ 1*( SP / HTAB ) field-vchar ] > field-vchar = VCHAR / obs-text > > obs-fold = CRLF 1*( SP / HTAB ) > ; obsolete line folding > ; see Section 3.2.4 > > Corrected Text > -------------- > field-name = token > field-value = *( field-content / obs-fold ) > field-content = field-vchar [ 1*( SP / HTAB / field-vchar ) field-vchar ] > field-vchar = VCHAR / obs-text > > obs-fold = OWS CRLF RWS > ; obsolete line folding > ; see Section 3.2.4 > > This fixes the problem examples and keeps obs-fold separate from field-content. > It would be best if some other folks could confirm the above before making > the errata official. Looks right to me. The one thing I'd change is to change obs-fold = OWS CRLF RWS to obs-fold = OWS CRLF 1*( SP / HTAB ) to minimize the diff from the RFC. Best regards, Julian
Received on Tuesday, 21 April 2015 13:14:15 UTC